The term "terroristic threat" has been around a long time, and has nothing to do with "terrorism" or a "terrorist threat", as it is used in the vernacular.

The term and legal notion of "terroristic threat" has been around for a long time, and has nothing to do with the "war on terror", 9/11, the Bush administration, or censorship.

Also, he is a contract employee who can be released at any time for any reason, even moreso than a normal at-will employee who also can be released at any time for any reason.

Even Boyd himself in his interview [fleen.com] correctly notes that "a terroristic threat is an old legal concept".

He is also not charged with any crime (though technically he could be), but that's always true. He says the "detectives at least seem satisfied" that he was "harmless", and showed samples of his work to one of the detectives.

It would be better to read his interview [fleen.com], instead of believing someone thinks this has anything to do with "terrorism" or a "terrorist threat" (no one does; remember, "terroristic threat is a legal concept that has been around a long time).

Unless you know everyone around you, this [threepanelsoul.com] probably isn't an appropriate conversation for the workplace, which Boyd says is a verbatim transcript [fleen.com] of what got him fired^H^H^H^H^Hreleased from a contract position that he can be released from at any time.

And this [threepanelsoul.com], even if joking, is probably not, all things considered, the wisest response. Only he, or people who know him well, knows he's not serious, frankly. Yeah, it's funny. But he already got fired for talking about how many times you'd have to shoot someone

Um, this is worth gutting all in a huff about. The government is supposed to defend freedom, not take it away. He might have been stupid to say those things, but NONE WERE THREATS of any kind. nor was the comic. No one accused him of mental problems or being likely to hurt anyone.

The lack of intelligence in law enforcement is no excuse to trample on civil rights. The worst he should have gotten was probation.

He didn't "get" anything. If you mean probation with respect to his work, that's between him and his employer. It most absolutely is not the government's role in a situation like this to mandate that he keep a contract job that he can be removed from, legally, at any time.

I hate to tell you this, but you can not fire people, even contractors, for just ANY reason. The reason you don't tell them why you are firing them is because there are so many ways to that firing someone is illegal.

I hate to tell you this, but you can not fire people, even contractors, for just ANY reason.

True, you can't fire people based upon age, race, gender, sexual orientation (in some states), or one of a few other reasons commonly referred to as "protected classes". In most states, employment is "at will", meaning you can be fired for any reason other than being a member of one of these protected classes. Owning a gun or talking about buying a gun is, as far as I know, does not qualify you for a protected class.

This depends a great deal on where you live. In a lot of at-will states, it is sufficient to simply say "you are fired." You don't need a reason of any kind. It can be "because you wore a purple shirt today," and unless "purple shirt wearing" is a protected class against discrimination (hint - it isn't), it sticks.
Every jurisdiction is different, but this is the way it actually works in a lot of locations. I know I've heard human resources attorneys in my state (NY) tell me this on multiple occasions.

Like many other crimes these days, it is the implication that you might do the crime that is becoming illegal, or in this case punishable. Like the virtual rape in second life http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/04/15 25222 [slashdot.org]. Or things like prosecuting someone who thinks they are flirting with a minor. Sure things like murder, pedophilia and terroism aren't going to have any vocal champions, but it grows into things like outlawing marijuana flavored candy.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/119442.html [reason.com] "Several jurisdictions, including Chicago, already have banned cannabis-flavored candy; Georgia is on the verge of prohibiting sales to minors; and legislators in other states have proposed their own restrictions or bans. Before the whole country is overwhelmed by the urge to prohibit anything that tastes like pot, let's pause to consider the aim of such legislation. Ban proponents do not claim the candy itself is dangerous. Rather, they object to the ideas it represents."

I'm not a big fan of potheads myself, but why would you pass a law against a flavor, if not to criminalize an idea? My point is that these type of laws are moving from the abhorrent (pedophilia) to the simply dumb (pot). It's a progression in a distrubing direction. It's parallel to extending the extra legal protection from assault police officers get into: it is illegal to publicly criticize law enforcement agents.

Um. When people have experiences those experiences have a way of desensitizing people. We pull way back from the line of child sex in order to make sure people are able to feel a sense of disgust by the idea. May be a stupid plan to ban the taste of pot in candy, soda, whatever, but it's not criminalizing the idea of smoking pot.If you don't believe me do this. Go somewhere where the flavor has been banned from candy and find a cop and tell him you just thought of someone smoking pot. You're not going to ge

Well, I must be some kind of psychic then, because I've never met him and yet I was somehow convinced that he wasn't planning to murder people when I saw that comic.

*Sigh*.

Ok, I'll explain this to you.

Without respect to his comic at all, someone at his place of work overheard him talking about how many times you'd have to shoot someone in the face with a.22 to kill them. A coworker, who most likely didn't know him, or know him well since he's a contractor, reported this incident to their supervisor.

He was released from his contract position (which the employer has every right to do) for the incident.

If you can't understand that was a stupid or at least marginally unwise thing for him to do, then I don't know what to say. Of course it sucks that he got "fired"/released from his contract position for it, but then, this is why we say that actions have consequences.

At this point, the comic isn't involved. At all.

Are you serious? The "presumed an insane killer until proven otherwise" attitude from his employers and the local police isn't enough to get in a huff about?

Uh, I couldn't possibly care less about his employer. They acted correctly, given the complaint and the situation. You just simply don't say something like that unless you know everyone around you knows you're joking.

Remember, the web comic still has not come into play yet.

AFTER he was fired, he humorously recounted it in his comic, which someone at some point must have seen, and in which he made what someone determined to be a threat, even if it was 100% in jest and humor. The police followed up on said complaint, which it is their JOB to do - no "guilty until proven innocent" yet - and then determined there was no actual threat (which again, is their job).

Words and actions have meaning, and consequences. Yes, there is all sorts of nuance, but we can't have this "have it both ways" collective mentality we do where we think "gee, maybe we could have stopped the Virginia Tech shootings" but then allow people to make what can be interpreted by some to be verbal or written threats. Yes, I get the comic. Haha, funny, etc. But his phone conversation about shooting someone in the face multiple times with a.22 to kill them, which was a gun he just bought, was interpreted by someone who probably didn't know him to be a threat. Which she reported. While it would be great if the employer could parse through things and say, hey, we realize you were joking, it's possible his employer didn't know him that well either, since he was a contract employee. And frankly, they can release a contractor at any time regardless, so that point is moot.

This is a non-story, and yes I'm serious. But people started confusing "terroristic threat" with "terrorism", so I'm sure this will have a nice, long life on many a blog.

My only disagreement is with you claiming that the employer acted correctly. Traditional HR policies are mostly geared around doing everything possible to keep the company from being sued, even if that isn't the 'correct' thing to do morally or ethically or even rationally.

I think lending validity to hypersensitive reactions based on overheard conversations is not a good thing for a company's long term workplace environment. And in the broader sense, pretending that things like this make us safer detracts from real issues that actually would make us safer if we had time or inclination to address them. Firing everyone who verbalizes something that someone might feel is threatening won't get us any closer to figuring out the differences between all those people and the VT shooter.

True. What is being missed is that if this is a non-story, then the company acted improperly, if legally. It's like the kid being expelled from school for bringing a plastic gun to school for a pageant about the civil war.If we are going to say that this is "no big deal" we should remember that this guy lost a job because of it, even though he posed no threat and was cleared by law enforcement.

All the jailhouse IANALs here at Slashdot love to talk about whether something is legal, but seldom about whether

'By the way: anyone who thinks Virginia Tech could have "prevented" this shooting somehow, this is exactly what you get.'

That's ridiculous. And I'm even pro-2nd amendment.

The comic writer didn't threaten anyone. The impetus for the investigation was an overheard conversation about a gun purchase. Neither is cause for an investigation of this level and a firing.

Compare that to the VA Tech horror--if you remove entirely Cho's writings (which is not a good level of judgment anyways), he should have been stopped during the purchase of his one gun at a gunshop, as he lied about being mentally incerated and such info is in the state's own judicial system which could have been cross-checked with answers when purchasing that gun. In fact, this past week, I believe the legislature of VA removed that roadblock; the law was fine, the implementation sucked.

Second, imnsho, and this isn't popular, I think the police HUGELY dropped the ball in the VA Tech situation (and by that opinion, the University is far less contributory through indifference in the 2nd shooting site deaths). If a police officer had been shot in the foot, they would have gone after that guy wholeheartedly, just as they did earlier in the year with a person who allegedly shot a deputy upon escape. The police dropped the ball--even they admit they were investigating another person who they "knew" had killed the first 2...oops, except he didn't. See, if a couple of kids get shot, you're not part of the FOP, it's thrown into a "domestic dispute" craphole where they go after the nearest; investigation is separate from correctly ascertaining threat, which comes full circle in demonstrating why the handling of web comic thing is so incorrect.

btw, I've never understood the whole firing thing in any case--besides clearly not a threat, you want to make the person even more out of their luck and prone to do something? Amazing how the US becomes more and more like China these days (China is far worse, but the approximations seen over the past 6 years in stories makes that gap narrower).

Also, he is a contract employee who can be released at any time for any reason, even moreso than a normal at-will employee who also can be released at any time for any reason.

Only within the terms of his contract. Sorry, just couldn't resist after you made "contract" italics and got all righteous. "Contract employee" does not mean "company's little bitch", and in fact, a contract worker can have more protection from sudden termination. Most of us are "at will" employees, and simply having something in your contract that prohibits your employer from firing you for no reason, gives you more rights. If worded reasonably (ie not "I AM UNFIREABLE FOR A YEAR!"), you MAY get that concession.

If you don't like being an at-will employee: get fired for no reason, sue, and get it far up enough to MAYBE be heard by the supreme court, because they're the ones who set the horrendous precedent in the first place. You don't have a prayer of getting legislation even presented, much less making it past committee, because of all the lobbying.

If the VT shootings hadn't happened, this whole episode wouldn't have happened.

If nobody read his comics, this whole episode wouldn't have happened.

There are many reasons that this episode shouldn't have happened, but people are afraid and over-react to 'err on the side of caution'. For many, better safe than sorry is the catchphrase of the week. They don't stop to think, or try to figure out what might be the level headed way to handle things.... like ask why they are talking about guns at work!

Now, why is it that the US in particular is so fearful? That is the better question, not 'is this guy going to shoot people?' For fscks sake, my retired mother has a 9mm which she uses at the gun range. I don't think that anyone will fear that she is a terrorist. Why should people think anyone that talks about guns is going to go on a killing rampage. If they were going to go kill people, the probably wouldn't be talking openly about guns!! There are millions of guns in the US and save for a few whackjobs, they generally are doing no harm to anyone. (street/drug/mafia crimes not counted) The point is that not everyone with a gun is a murderer. Not everyone from the middle east is a suicide bomber in training.

It's not the "US" that's fearful. Someone overheard him talking about how many times you'd need to shoot someone in the face to kill them with a.22. Someone who probably doesn't know him personally at all (or at least well) overheard this and reported it. On the day of the biggest mass shooting in the US to boot (which was admittedly why he was even talking about it in the first place).

Then he got released from a position that he can, as a contractor, be released from at any time, for any reason.

Um, yes, it's easier to fire a contractor. What the hell difference does that make?

Whenever there's a school or workplace shooting, everyone always rants about the "warning signs" and "why didn't anyone call the police when they guy was talking about shooting people in the face on the phone the other day?"

Yes, buddy, that is EXACTLY the problem. People ask why completely impractical solutions like

It is, in turn, the police's job to follow up on such a complaint, which they did, and after which he himself said the detectives determined that he wasn't actually a threat, and viewed samples of his work.

Uhhh, since when? Back before 9/11, such a 'complaint' would be met by the police with contempt.

"Has he committed any crime that you are aware of?"

"No? Then I'm sorry, the police can't get involved."

"Well, I'm sorry you're afraid, but he has a right to talk about whatever he wants."

Now that half the population consists of cry babies and worry warts, the police are being called in for every little thing that might be an indicator of some crime. Kinda makes you wonder how they are managing to police all t

I guess that's why the legal concept and notion of "terroristic threat" (not with respect to "terrorism" or anything else) has been around for decades, then, and why police have investigated people merely threatening to kill others for just as long?

I'm not going to dispute that the political climate plays some role, but come on: people have been dismissed for much less, and had visits from police in response to a complain for lesser still. All before 9/11 and Bush, no less.

As far as I'm aware, he didn't threaten to shoot anyone.And I remember a time where the only person you couldn't threaten to shoot was the president.

I find it interesting that 9/11 was almost 6 years ago.. there's people turning 18 now who were 12 or 13 when 9/11 happened. I dunno about you, but when I was 12 or 13 I had little concept of what freedoms adults had in society. As such, this year a whole generation of kids who have been raised in this 'political climate' are coming of age.

There might not be anything he can do about getting released and investigated, but that doesn't justify either event. People in his position have a right to be upset about frivolous firings, and citizens have a right to complain about police resources being wasted on obviously false leads.

There are many reasons that this episode shouldn't have happened, but people are afraid and over-react to 'err on the side of caution'. For many, better safe than sorry is the catchphrase of the week. They don't stop to think, or try to figure out what might be the level headed way to handle things

Why should people think anyone that talks about guns is going to go on a killing rampage. If they were going to go kill people, the probably wouldn't be talking openly about guns!!

Good point. You ever notice that the real nutjobs out there that walk into some public area and spray bullets all over the place are always described as "quiet" and "shy" and "oh my, he never talked about guns" and "gee, it's so surprising because he was a really nice boy" etc etc..

I can't remember one time when they talked to people who knew one of these mass murderers after the fact and they've said anything remotely like "well, he did talk about guns a lot" and "he went to the shooting range every week".

I mean seriously, if you were planning to commit such a terrible crime, or any crime for that matter, would you let any details out before you did it? Why would you risk getting busted before the fact? Don't they teach "think like a criminal" to law enforcement anymore?

Actually, I don't suppose they could...then they'd have to march every new graduate right off the dais and into a paddywagon for "criminal thoughts".

It gets kind of ridiculous. If the VT shootings hadn't happened, this whole episode wouldn't have happened. If nobody read his comics, this whole episode wouldn't have happened.

If he had kept his mouth shut at work about describing in graphic detail how to kill someone with a 22 rifle, this whole episode wouldn't have happened. If he hadn't cracked a joke in the termination "meeting" (or invented it in the webcomic) which could pretty clearly be misinterpreted, this whole episode wouldn't have happene

First of all, from my understanding (IANAL) of the law, assault would require that the comments be directed at a particular person. The person in question was eavesdropping on the conversation, and therefore could in no way be construed as a potential target of the comment -- and that's forgetting the context of the conversation, which was obviously "I don't want a weapon, I want to shoot targets, so I bought a weapon that's harder to screw up and kill someone with."

Sorry, you've got to have a screw loose to construe that conversation as threatening, assuming that the quotes are accurate.

Secondly, I've heard worse in the workplace on many occasions, and we all laugh and move on. If you're so scared of your own shadow that you can't stop and think about it for a minute before running to mommy, then you're part of the problem, not the solution. You are what the real terrorists are trying to create.

I'm really starting to get worried about our government, and the common American. All of this terrorist crap is turning into one big witch hunt. I don't like my neighboor, maybe I should report him and have the men with the black bags take him awawy...

I read TFA, I also read your comment, where you seem to equate being fired from your job (as a contractor) for saying something that upsets your coworkers to being taken away in black bags.I think any manager that resolves a situation like this by firing someone is probably only qualified for government work, but losing one's job and losing one's liberty are two entirely separate things. The government investigation concerning his liberty seemed to be handled responsibly and come to the correct conclusion

"I'd be interested to hear the NRA's response to this."Unfortunately the NRA has been MIA on a lot of this type of stuff. It used to be that a member could ask them for help, and if you were in the right, they would give you a hand.

These days The NRA is more interested in what your political and marketing value it to them. For example, they've been actively opposing the case that recently led to an appeals court ruling in the DC Circuit that affirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right and struck do

This type of thing has been going on since at least the Oklahoma City bombing and I assume it wasn't new even then.

Back then I had given a friend that is interested in making primitive weapons a printout on how to make his own black powder. This was a day or two before the Oklahoma City bombing, he had another friend at work (on of the national labs) that did the same thing and brought it in to him - this was the day after the bombing. A co-worker saw it laying on his desk and decided he was getting ready to blow everything up, called the FBI, and started about a two month long investigation. Obviously it led nowhere.

A few years later someone in our college set off an "incendiary device" (the detectives later told me it was acid and aluminum foil in a plastic jug) and I was, once more, investigated for all sorts of nice things. Again, nothing came of it as there was nothing there. I do not recall now what they accused me of, I assume it would now be "terrorist" but back then there was some other hot-button label for it.

And you might as well have been whatever the most despicable thing you can think of if you were in a gun club during the mid-90's and the great crusade against "militias" (not to mention almost every single incident was somehow their fault). There was almost no one anywhere defending you then - you were an evil gun-toting maniac. It was MUCH more endemic than the current "terrorist" thing - and at least there *are* terrorist out there that want to do us harm even though we are over reacting.

After any event there are people that fly into a panic of stupid things, call someone, and it gets all blown out of proportion. Most law enforcement thinks it stupid and - like the Duke non-rape case - you will sometimes get a political position decide it is time to show the people they are "doing something" and you get to be the one screwed. If you are unlucky you get Nifong as the prosecutor, this is the local prosecutor being an ass.

Oh man, if I think of all the things I built as a teenager: It started with model airplanes and escalated to rockets and crackers and eventually lead to much bigger bangs that rattled the neighborhood. I stopped when I set a whole mountain on fire with a hot-air balloon gone wrong, but looking back I actually stopped because I ran out of pocket money. Chemicals are expensive...

If the state he was working in has "at will" employment laws, no, he doesn't have a case. And he wasn't fired for buying a gun or intending to buy a gun, he was fired for talking in the office about guns.

immediately after columbine, back when I was in middle school (I guess that was quite a while ago) I remember a lot of kids getting expelled because for no particular reason other than that they were problem kids, had ADD, were loners, acted out a little, etc. If they made the administration nervous, they'd chuck them out the door. School and government bureaucrats tend to fear people who stick out more than anyone else.

In context it's kind of hilarious because our school had a problem with gang violence (it was the suburbs and middle school, so this wasn't exactly the stuff you see in the movies, but it was pretty bad), that the administration more or less ignored.

Will NRA provide any help to him? A lawyer, perhaps? A big compensation and all?After all, if people will get fired left and right because they were talking about weapons, that'd pretty much kill NRA, no?

In many government agencies, a large percentage of the new people in upper management are hoplophobes. They've never served in the military or lived in an area where gun ownership is common and accepted. They've probably never touched a firearm in their whole life. This causes problems when they are asked to make rational decisions about personnel or firearms policy and their kneejerk reaction is that "guns are evil" and "all gun owners are potential mass murderers". Instead of thinking, they let their fear dictate their actions.

In many walks a life, there are not an insignificant number of people who are hoplophiliacs. Often they have served in the military or grew up in an enviornment where gun ownership is common and accepted. They've probably handled hundreds of firearms throughout their life. This causes problems where they are asked to make rational decisions about personnel or firearms policy and their kneejerk reaction is that "guns are safe" and "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Instead of thinking, they let th

I honestly have to assume that at least some people who are afraid of guns and gun owners watch a hell of a lot of television. It's also fairly interesting the amount of stereotyping which goes on unchallenged about gun owners and their motivations. In many cases the people who routinely stereotype gun owners are the same ones who get bent out of shape when they, themselves, are stereotyped in some way.

My gun has killed a few hundred soda cans.

That's it.

All of the time and energy that could be spent actually trying to do something to address the completely fucked way this culture has come to regard and often glorify violence is spent in this bizarrely misguided struggle to take guns away from the people least likely to abuse them, and then money and time spent fighting these same efforts - money that could be used for gun safety education or some other effort to address the disturbing turn this country has taken in the past few years. I *am* afraid. I am afraid of the complete lack of ethics or sense of citizenship - by which I mean membership in and ownership of a society - that people seem to feel. I watch people litter and tag their own communities, pissing in the proverbial same river they drink from. It makes no sense to me. I certainly do not think that violence *isn't* a problem or that violence is over-hyped. There's a problem in the US, and it needs addressing - we have become an ugly, decadent culture, somehow...

But the guns follow; they certainly do not lead. If that was the case, we would have had the problems we have now a hundred years ago.

But the tone of this debate isn't helping. I admit that I contribute to it because I get wound up, insulted, and feel threatened sometimes by things I hear others advocate which would directly impact me, personally.

Most disturbing is the sanctimonious "I am so incredibly enlightened" attitude that some people who have an agenda against gun owners seem to have. In particular, this is vexing coming from the Left, who will (rightly) point to the abuses of this administration and its taste for police-state style surveillance measures against its own citizens, the illegal detention of people they refuse to charge with a crime, phony wars fought under completely false pretexts, and so on. And yet they will, in the end, suggest to you that they are entirely comfortable with this government having a completely monopoly on guns. In the end, even the loudest critics of government, would not want to be far from the safety of its embrace. Which is revolting to me, personally, but there it is.

There are people who, even after all of the incompetence, malfeasance, corruption, and crass cruelty of this administration, still trust them more than they do their neighbors. It really bothered me to watch the gun confiscation that went on in New Orleans, even when something that everyone said was impossible happened - and civilization broke down completely. There were few police around at all, but there were enough, apparently, to take guns from homeowners and residents, leaving them at the mercy of looters and criminals. This scenario was, until Katrina, a supposedly paranoid hypothetical that people claimed time and time again would not - and could not - happen in modern America. And yet, it did, and the police did the absolute worst thing they could (The NRA actually sued over this, and won).

If you ask me who we should really be afraid of, it's not peaceable gun owners. It's people who are paranoid and afraid of the freedoms of others. It's not just the serious, organized, politically active gun control advocates either - it's the people who think all homosexuals are potential pedophiles, or people who want to control what you can read or watch or listen to. It's the person in the room who wants all conversations sanitized because someone *might* be offended by something being discussed. Its the busybodies who report their neighbors to H

People who are afraid are generally the bigger problem, not just with guns, but with anything. Fear is unreasoning.

In the case of guns, people who were brought up in areas where they were normal (I am not talking inner cities...), are generally taught firearm safety and respect for weapons. They are tools, like chainsaws, sticks of dynamite, kitchen knives, and scalpels. They all have their uses and their dangers. People who hate guns and are afraid of them do not see them as tools (for any use) and do not see any other side than fear.

I respect people who do not like guns and want nothing to do personally with guns, just as I respect vegetarians (especially as I was one for a while). I respect people who are concerned about guns, crime, and gun safety. I do not respect people who hate guns, who hate omnivores, who are rampant homophobes, etc. There are a lot of those around. Oddly, a lot of the people who hate guns, seem to want to enforce a ban of them *with guns*. I don't think they understand the disconnect. Why is Policeman Bob a priori and *always* more trustworthy than Farmer Joe? Why think Policeman Bob is always going to be closer to hand when someone else with a gun shows up? They weren't there at VA Tech. Guns exist. Hating them doesn't change that. Learning a bit about them at least provides an understanding of the problem and might be a small piece of the solution.

Note, that on the other side, it is not "gun-lovers" that is a problem, it is people with other kinds of unreasoning fears, such as (rabid) fear of government oppression, rabid racial hatred, rabid isolationism, and extreme fundamentalism. Poking the beehive with a stick (actually oppressing them) just makes things worse. There are actually reasonable people in the middle.

... I can only advise him to first obtain legal counsel to seek to address his firing, if he really wants to. The NRA can be asked to assist, but frankly, as others have pointed out, his being a contractor diminishes his chances of getting his job back, since he can be released for any reason whatsoever. And to pursue the point further, would he really want to go back to that job?

This situation is problematic for him from several angles: posing a terroristic threat, creating a hostile work environment, not to mention goofing off and talking about your hobby wasting company time (you know, like cruising/. while at work:-). These are balanced against freedom of speech... and that's about it. Technically, it has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms. IMO, his options are pretty limited, if non-existent, and the success path is not clear.

Generally, I advise my students to limit discussing this very fun hobby to when they know they can talk without being overheard. This is not an attempt to censor folks, but a recommendation to be prudent, realizing that not everyone shares our enthusiasm, and that sadly, there is an aura of fear that grows among the more fearful when firearms are casually discussed.

Fortunately for me, where I work, many of us are NRA members and we have been told that people feel safer with us around. I take it as a compliment, and do my best to educate the ignorant but willing to learn (but then again, there are those who choose to remain ignorant, and you can only go so far with them). I specialize in teaching those who've never held a firearm before in their lives.

1. The government didn't do anything to him.2. He was released from a contract position that he can be released from at any time for talking about how many times you'd have to shoot someone in the face with a.22 to kill them, probably within earshot of someone who doesn't know him personally, on the day of the nation's worst mass shooting no less.

3. The police followed up after receiving a complaint when he recounted his firing in his comic implying that he now would have a reason to "go postal" (even if i

His "interview" with the detectives will now show up on every background check, which are common with job applications, whether disclosed or not, so his ability to earn a living has been compromised. He will also end up flagged for airline travel, be abused and humiliated by TSA every time he flies, so his freedom to travel has been compromised. It is possible that his passport, if any, could be revoked or refused renewal, as well. The grounds for that are not disclosed, so it's hard to tell. Apartment rental agreements also often include background checks, so he may not be able to live where he chooses. This man will be "punished" for the rest of his life, regardless of whether he is ever arrested, or not. Even if he is arrested and is judged "not guilty", the record of his arrest is not expunged, nor is his cost of defense reimbursed, so he is still punished. Meanwhile, the persons who set this upon him walk unimpeded. If there were any justice, they would rot in hell for violating the Commandment against false witness.

"Better safe than sorry" is an expression of cowardice. Life is a series of risks beginning with the genetic selection at conception. Given the odds that some child conceived, somewhere, will have a genetic defect (not to mention prenatal difficulties, post-natal trauma, disease,...), should we all stop having them? Get over it.

Sounds like you need some sort of timeout on how long this sort of stuff hangs around. In the UK convictions (except in certain situations) expire after a while. And he wasn't even arrested. How would that end up being noticeable when he's flying? And when he's renting etc - do members of the public have access to police records so that every chat is noted? Can I just phone the police in the States and pretend to be a landlord/prospective employer etc and find out every time you've been pulled over for ha

His interview with police will not show up on any background check, of any kind, anywhere, ever.

He will not be on any TSA, or any other, watch lists (and wouldn't be even if he was convicted of a crime - WTF? Oh, you're one of those people who think "terroristic threat" somehow is equated with "terrorism", even though they're utterly and completely different concepts, and unrelated).

He will not be "punished", for anything, and the only way anyone will know about this is because of the life it will have on blogs, and no one in any official capacity, save for possibly the individual detectives who talked to him about it remembering with their own minds, will have any knowledge of it.

I can't believe how wrong your entire post was, and that it got modded up to boot.

Actually, I'm not sure he could have been released at any time for any reason. There are still some grounds that could give him cause for retribution. Imagine if he was let go because the new department head didn't like black people and he has a relative that is black. Imagine he was let go associating with a Democrat (or republican) presidential candidate.There are such things as free speech, right to keep arms, and several other things. Now, This was a government job and with a crafty lawyer, it might be

Uh. Seriously. Do you realize how hard it is to just get up and move to another country? You can't just arrive on its doorstep and say "Here I am! Let me in so I can get a job!"You'd be on the next plane out of the country.

Usually, you need to either have family there who will sponsor you, a job already, be a refugee, or be fabulously wealthy and/or famous. Just being an average joe cartoonist from the States with an arrest record definitely won't cut it. Except maybe in some place incredibly poor coun